The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

[BlackHoley]

In a paper I was reading and using to reference a statement I made concerning how time is not an observable, which is strange at first when you consider quantum laws like $$\Delta E \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2} \hbar$$, an interesting question might exist, can you take the conjugate of energy as something which isn't even an observable?

That's an interesting question and I will come back to it... in this post, I want to talk about some questions this paper raised, which brought to attention how time comes out of macroscopic interaction.
What the paper did fail to properly point out, is that there are two solutions. The macroscopic scale could be an emergent time and fundamentally, time may not exist. What may exist in macroscopic time. The paper makes a point of making out however, that external time is a hypothesis of our theory, there being no way to measure time like a system, means there is no way to actually it exists other than a fanciful addition made by the mathematicians.

There is no external time but there can be a local gauging of time to inertial systems. The difference here, is that external time assumes there is a universal clock. I argue there is no global time, just as General Relativity predicts. To give ''time to matter'' we simply recognize two simple equations, one by Einstein and the other Planck

$$E = h \nu$$
$$E = Mc^2$$

and together the equations find that matter itself has a frequency $$\nu$$ and because of this matter itself has a clock

$$\nu = m (\frac{c^2}{h})$$

This is how you obtain the definition that all matter contributes to some local experience of time. The emergence of matter in the universe in this sense Penrose explains, would explain how time can be emergent - or in his case, he uses it to explain how time can disappear in a universe (1), in the same sense, we should be able to use it to explain how it might emerge in a universe. Matter experiences time, they truck through space often much at speeds below the velocity of light. The problem of using light is that they follow null light cones, no time passes for them relativistically-speaking; this cannot happen because they fail to have a frame of reference.

Mass allows change in this universe, our sense of time is largely due to it.

Fixing the Uncertainty Principle isn't Easy

As explained before, the well known, cornerstone of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is hailed as

$$\Delta E \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2} \hbar$$

The problem as stated before in posts I have been speaking to people about, is that time is not an observable. You can't measure time like you can energy: And it's a very important point to make out, because only true conjugate observables can amount to a proper representation of the physical situation within the math. But there is a problem trying to even find a timeless solution to it... because the conjugate of energy is explicitely defined with time under Noethers Theorem. So it's unclear how you can redefine the UP in this sense... even if you used the generic $$\lambda$$.


(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkOYQ02chs

 

[quantum_wave]

In a paper I was reading and using to reference a statement I made concerning how time is not an observable, which is strange at first when you consider quantum laws like $$\Delta E \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2} \hbar$$, an interesting question might exist, can you take the conjugate of energy as something which isn't even an observable?

That's an interesting question and I will come back to it... in this post, I want to talk about some questions this paper raised, which brought to attention how time comes out of macroscopic interaction.
What the paper did fail to properly point out, is that there are two solutions. The macroscopic scale could be an emergent time and fundamentally, time may not exist. What may exist in macroscopic time. The paper makes a point of making out however, that external time is a hypothesis of our theory, there being no way to measure time like a system, means there is no way to actually it exists other than a fanciful addition made by the mathematicians.

There is no external time but there can be a local gauging of time to inertial systems. The difference here, is that external time assumes there is a universal clock. I argue there is no global time, just as General Relativity predicts. To give ''time to matter'' we simply recognize two simple equations, one by Einstein and the other Planck

$$E = h \nu$$
$$E = Mc^2$$

and together the equations find that matter itself has a frequency $$\nu$$ and because of this matter itself has a clock

$$\nu = m (\frac{c^2}{h})$$

This is how you obtain the definition that all matter contributes to some local experience of time. The emergence of matter in the universe in this sense Penrose explains, would explain how time can be emergent - or in his case, he uses it to explain how time can disappear in a universe (1), in the same sense, we should be able to use it to explain how it might emerge in a universe. Matter experiences time, they truck through space often much at speeds below the velocity of light. The problem of using light is that they follow null light cones, no time passes for them relativistically-speaking; this cannot happen because they fail to have a frame of reference.

Mass allows change in this universe, our sense of time is largely due to it.

Fixing the Uncertainty Principle isn't Easy

As explained before, the well known, cornerstone of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is hailed as

$$\Delta E \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2} \hbar$$

The problem as stated before in posts I have been speaking to people about, is that time is not an observable. You can't measure time like you can energy: And it's a very important point to make out, because only true conjugate observables can amount to a proper representation of the physical situation within the math. But there is a problem trying to even find a timeless solution to it... because the conjugate of energy is explicitely defined with time under Noethers Theorem. So it's unclear how you can redefine the UP in this sense... even if you used the generic $$\lambda$$.


(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkOYQ02chs

That was a good video, except for the camera work. Especially in the last few minutes when Penroser was slapping up various slides, they failed to show the slides, which made it hard to follow the first time through. I'll have to see if I can find the transcript and maybe a different YouTube video of the same presentation.

 

[cav755]

In a paper I was reading and using to reference a statement I made concerning how time is not an observable, which is strange at first when you consider quantum laws like $$\Delta E \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2} \hbar$$, an interesting question might exist, can you take the conjugate of energy as something which isn't even an observable?

That's an interesting question and I will come back to it... in this post, I want to talk about some questions this paper raised, which brought to attention how time comes out of macroscopic interaction.
What the paper did fail to properly point out, is that there are two solutions. The macroscopic scale could be an emergent time and fundamentally, time may not exist. What may exist in macroscopic time. The paper makes a point of making out however, that external time is a hypothesis of our theory, there being no way to measure time like a system, means there is no way to actually it exists other than a fanciful addition made by the mathematicians.

There is no external time but there can be a local gauging of time to inertial systems. The difference here, is that external time assumes there is a universal clock. I argue there is no global time, just as General Relativity predicts. To give ''time to matter'' we simply recognize two simple equations, one by Einstein and the other Planck

$$E = h \nu$$
$$E = Mc^2$$

and together the equations find that matter itself has a frequency $$\nu$$ and because of this matter itself has a clock

$$\nu = m (\frac{c^2}{h})$$

This is how you obtain the definition that all matter contributes to some local experience of time. The emergence of matter in the universe in this sense Penrose explains, would explain how time can be emergent - or in his case, he uses it to explain how time can disappear in a universe (1), in the same sense, we should be able to use it to explain how it might emerge in a universe. Matter experiences time, they truck through space often much at speeds below the velocity of light. The problem of using light is that they follow null light cones, no time passes for them relativistically-speaking; this cannot happen because they fail to have a frame of reference.

Mass allows change in this universe, our sense of time is largely due to it.

Fixing the Uncertainty Principle isn't Easy

As explained before, the well known, cornerstone of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is hailed as

$$\Delta E \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2} \hbar$$

The problem as stated before in posts I have been speaking to people about, is that time is not an observable. You can't measure time like you can energy: And it's a very important point to make out, because only true conjugate observables can amount to a proper representation of the physical situation within the math. But there is a problem trying to even find a timeless solution to it... because the conjugate of energy is explicitely defined with time under Noethers Theorem. So it's unclear how you can redefine the UP in this sense... even if you used the generic $$\lambda$$.


(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkOYQ02chs

What does this have to do with de Broglie's wave mechanics and double solution theory?

 

[paddoboy]

The problem as stated before in posts I have been speaking to people about, is that time is not an observable. You can't measure time like you can energy:

Sure we can.
It's been 13.8 billion years since the Universe/space/time evolved....It's been 13 hours or so since I last participated on this forum.
Time exists for all of us, and is inexorably linked to the Universe and space.
I often write in my posts, space/time/Universe/gravity/matter/energy, because they all depend on one another.
This dependence on one another, is illustrated in the observable effects we see re the flexible nature of both time and space, [time dilation and length contraction] and of course the constant nature of the speed of light.
These effects in general everyday life are not seen, as they are tiny, but certainly reveal themselves at relativistic speeds and extreme dense matter that effect the geometry of space/time.

This geometrical shaping in the presence of mass/energy, [curving/warping twisting] reveals itself in what we know as gravity.
And with Einstein's famous equation, E=Mc2, the relationship and dependence on one another of space/time/gravity/matter/energy can readily be seen.

So time exists, because space exists, and the universe exists, even if we have no sentinel beings around to measure it.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Instead of me looking through hundreds of posts trying to find what it is you asked that you don't think I answered, I'm just asking you to post the questions again.

Hundreds? You've lost track of your own posting after TWO posts. Your post #259. Try it again.

All: here, the subject's seeming inability to hold a coherent train of thought for two posts raises questions about his thought processing ability. The trolling appears mixed with a true inability to follow any even moderately complex thought.

 

[brucep]

Again, your objections don't address the nature of Bell's theorem or its experimental tests, and that's why I think you clearly don't understand what it's about, regardless of how many layman sources you claim to have glanced at. Bell didn't falsify anything, per se. What he did is he showed mathematically that any local hidden variable theory whatsoever has to make a different statistical prediction than the one offered by the Copenhagen Interpretation, and that this difference can be tested. 15 years later, technology caught up to theory, experiments were performed and local hidden variables were statistically falsified beyond any reasonable doubt, but that wasn't Bell's work. Your argument that the results of these experiments depend on interpreting quantum mechanics a specific way holds no water, it only indicates to me that you simply don't understand the subject; the axes of spin measurements in Alain Aspect's original experiments were only decided after the photons were created and separated, so in a local hidden variable theory it's impossible for this choice to produce "spooky action at a distance", whereas action at a distance has been thoroughly demonstrated in these experiments via statistics, and it's a result independent of how QM is formulated or interpreted.

Very informative comments. Thanks.

 

[cav755]

Hundreds? You've lost track of your own posting after TWO posts. Your post #259. Try it again.

All: here, the subject's seeming inability to hold a coherent train of thought for two posts raises questions about his thought processing ability. The trolling appears mixed with a true inability to follow any even moderately complex thought.

You could have re-posted your questions by now.

You could have also figured out particles are particles and waves are waves by now.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

[brucep]

And that pyramid-shaped hotel with the Sphinx in Vegas is remarkably similar to early constructions found in northeast Africa, so that means Las Vegas must have been founded by ancient Egyptians.

Very informative post. LOL.

 

[brucep]

Hundreds? You've lost track of your own posting after TWO posts. Your post #259. Try it again.

All: here, the subject's seeming inability to hold a coherent train of thought for two posts raises questions about his thought processing ability. The trolling appears mixed with a true inability to follow any even moderately complex thought.

It's registered brain dead, on my metering system, since the first time he made these same comments at sciphysicsrelativity.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You could have re-posted your questions by now.

Certainly, but if I had, we wouldn't have learned what we did about you. Clearly, studying you is all there is to learn here since you are either unwilling or unable to examine your idea in any detail.

All: notice how the subject repeated his request that I restate my questions and ignored that I referenced where to find it in his own post. That response is more likely stubborn refusal to be responsive, unlike the previous post, which appears to show a genuine inability to think. In other words: that post is all troll.

 

[cav755]

It's registered brain dead, on my metering system, since the first time he made these same comments at sciphysicsrelativity.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics

 

[CptBork]

I think we have reached a point beyond which you are not willing to go. You can't acknowledge that hidden variables interpretations necessarily posit that existing QM is incomplete. The experiements you say have put the issue to rest have not put the issue to rest, and that is because of what you can't seem to acknowledge. If QM is incomplete, you are wrong. If it is complete, I am wrong. So you say it is complete, fine. If you say there is room for future developments, but still want to turn your responses to my personal lack of understanding, fine too.

You just don't seem to get it. Quantum mechanics could be complete absolute bullcrap, and yet the experimental tests of Bell's theorem still demonstrate that nature is nonlocal (as well as just happening to match precisely with what QM predicts). It doesn't matter what kind of local hidden variable theory you want to postulate, it can't account for Aspect's results, and you'd see that for yourself if you actually spent some time looking at the math and exactly what it is Bell did instead of just reading some popular musings on it.

 

[paddoboy]

All: notice how the subject repeated his request that I restate my questions and ignored that I referenced where to find it in his own post. That response is more likely stubborn refusal to be responsive, unlike the previous post, which appears to show a genuine inability to think. In other words: that post is all troll.

I made that similar comment earlier on in this or the other thread.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I made that similar comment earlier on in this or the other thread.

Yeah, I'm sure most people have him figured out.

 

[quantum_wave]

You just don't seem to get it. Quantum mechanics could be complete absolute bullcrap, and yet the experimental tests of Bell's theorem still demonstrate that nature is nonlocal (as well as just happening to match precisely with what QM predicts). It doesn't matter what kind of local hidden variable theory you want to postulate, it can't account for Aspect's results, and you'd see that for yourself if you actually spent some time looking at the math and exactly what it is Bell did instead of just reading some popular musings on it.

What ever you say. Your decision to believe that is fine with me. But my take on it is that there is an explanation for the latest experiments based on local reality, and somehow I doubt that you have read as much on that topic as I have.

Its time for me to fade out into the Fringe again for awhile, while I get my 2014 hobby-model update started. Thanks for all the comments, and Cav755, good luck, and keep up the attempts to educate us. I'm glad that the moderation of this forum hasn't forbidden this type of thread here, for the present. Those two or three vocal members who say you/we should do this out in the Fringe are the same people who would never contribute anything on-topic, either here or there, without shrouding it in disparagement and aloofness.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yeah, I'm sure most people have him figured out.

He's back as sockpuppet of banned users mpc755/mc7755/mpc7555

repeated posting of the same material; creating a sock puppet to evade a ban​

He came back in several incarnations, one of which was banned user gravitational_aether.

In any case you nailed him to the wall with that last post. It doesn't really matter how many times he is banned, he will never be received as more than a fraud wherever he hangs his trollish pointy little dunce hat.

 

[brucep]

He's back as sockpuppet of banned users mpc755/mc7755/mpc7555

repeated posting of the same material; creating a sock puppet to evade a ban​

He came back in several incarnations, one of which was banned user gravitational_aether.

In any case you nailed him to the wall with that last post. It doesn't really matter how many times he is banned, he will never be received as more than a fraud wherever he hangs his trollish pointy little dunce hat.

LOL. The 'reasoning' behind his choice of sock puppet handles. LOL. This is a continuing Dunning and Kruger experiment. LOL. You're probably conducting it. LOL. I actually think the 'LOL' thing is pretty lame but .......... LOL.

 

[paddoboy]

Its time for me to fade out into the Fringe again for awhile, while I get my 2014 hobby-model update started. Thanks for all the comments, and Cav755, good luck, and keep up the attempts to educate us. I'm glad that the moderation of this forum hasn't forbidden this type of thread here, for the present. Those two or three vocal members who say you/we should do this out in the Fringe are the same people who would never contribute anything on-topic, either here or there, without shrouding it in disparagement and aloofness.

Of course it should be done in the fringe...That's what the alternative theory section or pseudoscience is for.
In general we may have a million alternative theorists out there, each with a different model, each doing his best to get noticed and claim superiority to the mainstream interpretation, but each wanting to do it by bypassing the scientific methodology and peer review.
Quite conveniant for them, isn't it?

I'm not sure why the half a dozen or so alternative theories being discussed in science and maths hasn't been moved as yet...perhaps the mods are busy elsewhere, perhaps the administrator sees the amount of reaction it stirs up as desirable for the forum in general....:shrug:

And any aloofness as you put it is coming from the alternative side if you want to be honest. I mean it is they [well at least three of them] that have put their ideas and models as faitre complei 100% certainties....although I prefer to call it straight out arrogance and delusions of grandeur.

We have the foundation of an accepted scientific method.
We have a peer review system.
Neither are 100% perfect, but both are the best there is.
Those that want to skirt round them, will still need to run the gauntlet, and the only fame gained will be isolated notoriety on forums such as this.
The scientific community will remain as is in their service to humanity.

 

[quantum_wave]

Of course it should be done in the fringe...That's what the alternative theory section or pseudoscience is for.
In general we may have a million alternative theorists out there, each with a different model, each doing his best to get noticed and claim superiority to the mainstream interpretation, but each wanting to do it by bypassing the scientific methodology and peer review.
Quite conveniant for them, isn't it?

Of course, since I am one of "them", I'm quite tolerant of discussion on various topics that I think focus on areas where generally accepted science falls short, but I mentioned that here recently, and that is not my intent in this post. What I want to say is that "we" seek the comments that an alternative thread gets here because you cannot get knowledgeable members to participate out in the fringe. For example, in my entire Big Wait thread, you were the member who made the most posts, and as you might recall, our discussion was not at all in depth.

...

We have the foundation of an accepted scientific method.
We have a peer review system.
Neither are 100% perfect, but both are the best there is.
Those that want to skirt round them, will still need to run the gauntlet, and the only fame gained will be isolated notoriety on forums such as this.
The scientific community will remain as is in their service to humanity.

Still, laymen with their own questions about theories that many members accept as fact, and pass off as fact, still have a valid argument when they want to discuss inconsistencies between or incompleteness of those theories. The statement is still true that one of the pillars of the scientific method is the tentativeness of science.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course, since I am one of "them", I'm quite tolerant of discussion on various topics that I think focus on areas where generally accepted science falls short, but I mentioned that here recently, and that is no my intent in this post. What I want to say is that "we" seek the comments that an alternative thread gets here because you cannot get knowledgeable members to participate out in the fringe..

I just went back and checked out your "Big wait"thread in alternative theories"...Interesting.
People that really know me, know me as someone with very Imaginative ideas. In fact although I'm referred here as a "mainstream cheer leader"in another forum, I was thought to be a bit of a renegade.
I have raised in the cosmology section ideas re the BB being the arse end of a WH, and BH singularities leading to other Universes....
I have discussed a BH being able to maintain its shape in the same cosmology section, if the mass [singularity] was magically removed, due to the non-linearity of gravity/space/time.
Note! I raised both subjects for discussion, and I did not claim 100% "this is the way it is" certainty that at least three alternative theorists I have recently crossed swords with have done, with their alternative stuff.
That's what I call arrogance. I put my stuff up for discussion, pure and simple....and I listened to thoughts that others contributed.
You see what I'm getting at?
And out of interest all three alternative proposals would rewrite 20th/21 century cosmology!

Sure, there is a non zero chance that we have an Einstein out there somewhere, but then again I ask the question, why would he be posting and claiming such ground breaking stuff here?